You are here
Having Concessionaires and Contractors Pay for Local Government Parties
Friday, June 18th, 2010
Robert Wechsler
It's a good thing, especially in this age of fiscal austerity, when a
local government affair, such as a retirement party, is not paid for
out of public funds. But retirement parties, within reason, are part of
any organization's calendar. Better they be reasonable and paid for by
taxpayers than the alternative.
That alternative is having local government affairs paid for by those doing business with the agency, as appears to have happened in Atlanta, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The going-away party for the airport's general manager, with 250 guests, cost $22,000.
The airport itself did not collect the checks or even pay for the party. This was done by the Airport Area Chamber of Commerce, that is, by a representative of those doing business with the airport, including airport concession holders, consultants, an airline, a construction company, and the electric company. This makes it look as if the airport officials kept out of the fundraising, but sadly, this was not the case. For example, the ground transportation manager asked for funds from companies in the ground transportation industry. The chamber of commerce appears to have been playing the beard.
Such fundraising schemes can be used as pay-to-play vehicles: it's hard for those doing business with an agency to say no. Or they can be a way for businesses to show that they will reward friendly behavior toward them.
Even if this is not the intent of those putting such an affair together, this sort of fundraising creates an unhealthy relationship with such companies. Business transactions should be as arm's-length and professional as possible. And it certainly does nothing to support the public's trust in government.
One thing that people often don't realize about such fundraising schemes is that often much more money is raised than is needed. That is, companies can show their support and get some of their money back. In this case, $38,000 was raised, and nearly half of that was returned. This makes it look like contributions were as much for show as for actual financial support. Or did the airport decide to tone the affair down a bit, considering that 67 airport employees were being laid off that week?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
That alternative is having local government affairs paid for by those doing business with the agency, as appears to have happened in Atlanta, according to an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The going-away party for the airport's general manager, with 250 guests, cost $22,000.
The airport itself did not collect the checks or even pay for the party. This was done by the Airport Area Chamber of Commerce, that is, by a representative of those doing business with the airport, including airport concession holders, consultants, an airline, a construction company, and the electric company. This makes it look as if the airport officials kept out of the fundraising, but sadly, this was not the case. For example, the ground transportation manager asked for funds from companies in the ground transportation industry. The chamber of commerce appears to have been playing the beard.
Such fundraising schemes can be used as pay-to-play vehicles: it's hard for those doing business with an agency to say no. Or they can be a way for businesses to show that they will reward friendly behavior toward them.
Even if this is not the intent of those putting such an affair together, this sort of fundraising creates an unhealthy relationship with such companies. Business transactions should be as arm's-length and professional as possible. And it certainly does nothing to support the public's trust in government.
One thing that people often don't realize about such fundraising schemes is that often much more money is raised than is needed. That is, companies can show their support and get some of their money back. In this case, $38,000 was raised, and nearly half of that was returned. This makes it look like contributions were as much for show as for actual financial support. Or did the airport decide to tone the affair down a bit, considering that 67 airport employees were being laid off that week?
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
---
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
